NE5 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I might be a bit pessimistic about these things, but all in all the only way to generate income in football is by success on the field, and while I agree that the priority should be to keep down the spending and the wage bill, this is a very dangerous road we took. I hope MA will prove me wrong btw. This final paragraph kind of hints at the alternative to Ashley's strategy, which is a speculate-to-accumulate policy of forking out for established players in the hope that you can then recoup the outlay by success on the field. Aside from the fact that we have Leeds as an example of what can happen with a run of bad results, is this a strategy that can work in the present climate ? With the gap between the top four and the rest being so large, and the huge cost, in fees and wages, of attracting the best players to a non-Champions League team, you could easily end up spending £50 million and end up with a team that's in the relegation zone. Even a few years ago, it was a risky strategy, but now it seems completely unrealistic. I get bored of Leeds being trotted out as a cautionary tale to everyone in the league. One example of a club that speculated and failed....but let's not forget they are still living to tell the tale. "Doing a Leeds" isn't the end of a club. It's highly likely they'll be in the same division as us next year ffs, even with all our frugality. What we did in the 90's shows that speculation works. The same as Villa are doing now. Look at the bottom five.... Newcastle Portsmouth Blackburn Middlesbrough West Brom What have they got in common? None of them have a net spend of more than £6m over the past two years. Look at the next nine up... West Ham Man City Wigan Fulham Bolton Tottenham Sunderland Hull Stoke Only Bolton and Wigan have managed to get in this position with a net spend less than £10m in 2 years. In football, the speculators DO accumulate. Current league position is dependent on spend over the previous 2 years? Even if the league table continues to reflect those positions at the end of the season, the myriad of interconnecting factors that determine league position are far more complex than just something as simplistic as that. We should have spent more money in January, you dont need a statistical fallacy to persaude anyone of that. Yeah, I've not done a thesis on it, found the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient or owt. Interesting trend though, no? And I did 2 years, because that's how long Wor Mike has been here. In that it tells us we needed to spend more money in January? We didnt really need it to know that. bobyule did. He said we could easily do a Leeds if we spent more. I was just pointing out Leeds are the exception. Not the rule. I'm sure there's another club that spent a load of money on players, had a brief flirtation with the Champions League some time ago, and is now struggling as a result of overstretching themselves in the attempt to "speculate to accumulate". What are they called again? It's on the tip of my tongue. Begins with an "N"... Not that brief. We were in Europe 8 years out of ten before Big Mike arrived. They managed a couple of years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I might be a bit pessimistic about these things, but all in all the only way to generate income in football is by success on the field, and while I agree that the priority should be to keep down the spending and the wage bill, this is a very dangerous road we took. I hope MA will prove me wrong btw. This final paragraph kind of hints at the alternative to Ashley's strategy, which is a speculate-to-accumulate policy of forking out for established players in the hope that you can then recoup the outlay by success on the field. Aside from the fact that we have Leeds as an example of what can happen with a run of bad results, is this a strategy that can work in the present climate ? With the gap between the top four and the rest being so large, and the huge cost, in fees and wages, of attracting the best players to a non-Champions League team, you could easily end up spending £50 million and end up with a team that's in the relegation zone. Even a few years ago, it was a risky strategy, but now it seems completely unrealistic. I get bored of Leeds being trotted out as a cautionary tale to everyone in the league. One example of a club that speculated and failed....but let's not forget they are still living to tell the tale. "Doing a Leeds" isn't the end of a club. It's highly likely they'll be in the same division as us next year ffs, even with all our frugality. What we did in the 90's shows that speculation works. The same as Villa are doing now. Look at the bottom five.... Newcastle Portsmouth Blackburn Middlesbrough West Brom What have they got in common? None of them have a net spend of more than £6m over the past two years. Look at the next nine up... West Ham Man City Wigan Fulham Bolton Tottenham Sunderland Hull Stoke Only Bolton and Wigan have managed to get in this position with a net spend less than £10m in 2 years. In football, the speculators DO accumulate. Current league position is dependent on spend over the previous 2 years? Even if the league table continues to reflect those positions at the end of the season, the myriad of interconnecting factors that determine league position are far more complex than just something as simplistic as that. We should have spent more money in January, you dont need a statistical fallacy to persaude anyone of that. Yeah, I've not done a thesis on it, found the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient or owt. Interesting trend though, no? And I did 2 years, because that's how long Wor Mike has been here. In that it tells us we needed to spend more money in January? We didnt really need it to know that. bobyule did. He said we could easily do a Leeds if we spent more. I was just pointing out Leeds are the exception. Not the rule. I'm sure there's another club that spent a load of money on players, had a brief flirtation with the Champions League some time ago, and is now struggling as a result of overstretching themselves in the attempt to "speculate to accumulate". What are they called again? It's on the tip of my tongue. Begins with an "N"... Not that brief. We were in Europe 8 years out of ten before Big Mike arrived. They managed a couple of years. I spoke of the Champions League. We were in that once about eight years ago, and one other time about 12 years ago. Since the Champions League began in 1997, only 6 English clubs have qualified for it and played in it. What do you think of the fact that 85 clubs have had NO "flirtation" with the Champions League ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I might be a bit pessimistic about these things, but all in all the only way to generate income in football is by success on the field, and while I agree that the priority should be to keep down the spending and the wage bill, this is a very dangerous road we took. I hope MA will prove me wrong btw. This final paragraph kind of hints at the alternative to Ashley's strategy, which is a speculate-to-accumulate policy of forking out for established players in the hope that you can then recoup the outlay by success on the field. Aside from the fact that we have Leeds as an example of what can happen with a run of bad results, is this a strategy that can work in the present climate ? With the gap between the top four and the rest being so large, and the huge cost, in fees and wages, of attracting the best players to a non-Champions League team, you could easily end up spending £50 million and end up with a team that's in the relegation zone. Even a few years ago, it was a risky strategy, but now it seems completely unrealistic. I get bored of Leeds being trotted out as a cautionary tale to everyone in the league. One example of a club that speculated and failed....but let's not forget they are still living to tell the tale. "Doing a Leeds" isn't the end of a club. It's highly likely they'll be in the same division as us next year ffs, even with all our frugality. What we did in the 90's shows that speculation works. The same as Villa are doing now. Look at the bottom five.... Newcastle Portsmouth Blackburn Middlesbrough West Brom What have they got in common? None of them have a net spend of more than £6m over the past two years. Look at the next nine up... West Ham Man City Wigan Fulham Bolton Tottenham Sunderland Hull Stoke Only Bolton and Wigan have managed to get in this position with a net spend less than £10m in 2 years. In football, the speculators DO accumulate. Current league position is dependent on spend over the previous 2 years? Even if the league table continues to reflect those positions at the end of the season, the myriad of interconnecting factors that determine league position are far more complex than just something as simplistic as that. We should have spent more money in January, you dont need a statistical fallacy to persaude anyone of that. Yeah, I've not done a thesis on it, found the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient or owt. Interesting trend though, no? And I did 2 years, because that's how long Wor Mike has been here. In that it tells us we needed to spend more money in January? We didnt really need it to know that. bobyule did. He said we could easily do a Leeds if we spent more. I was just pointing out Leeds are the exception. Not the rule. I'm sure there's another club that spent a load of money on players, had a brief flirtation with the Champions League some time ago, and is now struggling as a result of overstretching themselves in the attempt to "speculate to accumulate". What are they called again? It's on the tip of my tongue. Begins with an "N"... Not that brief. We were in Europe 8 years out of ten before Big Mike arrived. They managed a couple of years. I spoke of the Champions League. We were in that once about eight years ago, and one other time about 12 years ago. Since the Champions League began in 1997, only 6 English clubs have qualified for it and played in it. What do you think of the fact that 85 clubs have had NO "flirtation" with the Champions League ? The Champions League began in 1992, not 1997. Seven English clubs have qualified, not six. But you're correct, surprisingly, that 85 clubs have never been involved in it -- which means that you can't subtract six from 92. And our brief flirtation is still a "brief flirtation". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I might be a bit pessimistic about these things, but all in all the only way to generate income in football is by success on the field, and while I agree that the priority should be to keep down the spending and the wage bill, this is a very dangerous road we took. I hope MA will prove me wrong btw. This final paragraph kind of hints at the alternative to Ashley's strategy, which is a speculate-to-accumulate policy of forking out for established players in the hope that you can then recoup the outlay by success on the field. Aside from the fact that we have Leeds as an example of what can happen with a run of bad results, is this a strategy that can work in the present climate ? With the gap between the top four and the rest being so large, and the huge cost, in fees and wages, of attracting the best players to a non-Champions League team, you could easily end up spending £50 million and end up with a team that's in the relegation zone. Even a few years ago, it was a risky strategy, but now it seems completely unrealistic. I get bored of Leeds being trotted out as a cautionary tale to everyone in the league. One example of a club that speculated and failed....but let's not forget they are still living to tell the tale. "Doing a Leeds" isn't the end of a club. It's highly likely they'll be in the same division as us next year ffs, even with all our frugality. What we did in the 90's shows that speculation works. The same as Villa are doing now. Look at the bottom five.... Newcastle Portsmouth Blackburn Middlesbrough West Brom What have they got in common? None of them have a net spend of more than £6m over the past two years. Look at the next nine up... West Ham Man City Wigan Fulham Bolton Tottenham Sunderland Hull Stoke Only Bolton and Wigan have managed to get in this position with a net spend less than £10m in 2 years. In football, the speculators DO accumulate. Current league position is dependent on spend over the previous 2 years? Even if the league table continues to reflect those positions at the end of the season, the myriad of interconnecting factors that determine league position are far more complex than just something as simplistic as that. We should have spent more money in January, you dont need a statistical fallacy to persaude anyone of that. Yeah, I've not done a thesis on it, found the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient or owt. Interesting trend though, no? And I did 2 years, because that's how long Wor Mike has been here. In that it tells us we needed to spend more money in January? We didnt really need it to know that. bobyule did. He said we could easily do a Leeds if we spent more. I was just pointing out Leeds are the exception. Not the rule. I'm sure there's another club that spent a load of money on players, had a brief flirtation with the Champions League some time ago, and is now struggling as a result of overstretching themselves in the attempt to "speculate to accumulate". What are they called again? It's on the tip of my tongue. Begins with an "N"... Not that brief. We were in Europe 8 years out of ten before Big Mike arrived. They managed a couple of years. seriously? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 We may well be thanking Laura Ashley in 12 to 18 months time but from what i've seen both at the club and in football in general there is much more chance of effigies being burned of the fat c*** before this year is out. The fact Scudamore has managed to negotiate a new TV deal for more money during a time of recession tells me that the arse isn't about to drop out of this sport just yet. The only clubs who are going to be in real danger are ones in the Fizzy Pop leagues, the leagues we'll be playing in over the next few years. Seems to me that Ashley wanted to sell the club on for a profit, hence the ridiculous instance on clearing up even the managable chunks of debt but the global financial clusterfuck hit hard and all of a sudden he didn't have a hope in hells chance of getting rid of us. Thusly the club is suffering now. the size of the TV deal doesn't matter if clubs see it as a green light to live TOO far beyond their capabilities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 We may well be thanking Laura Ashley in 12 to 18 months time but from what i've seen both at the club and in football in general there is much more chance of effigies being burned of the fat c*** before this year is out. The fact Scudamore has managed to negotiate a new TV deal for more money during a time of recession tells me that the arse isn't about to drop out of this sport just yet. The only clubs who are going to be in real danger are ones in the Fizzy Pop leagues, the leagues we'll be playing in over the next few years. Seems to me that Ashley wanted to sell the club on for a profit, hence the ridiculous instance on clearing up even the managable chunks of debt but the global financial clusterfuck hit hard and all of a sudden he didn't have a hope in hells chance of getting rid of us. Thusly the club is suffering now. the size of the TV deal doesn't matter if clubs see it as a green light to live TOO far beyond their capabilities. indubitably- remember the collapse of the ITV deal years back, that fucked clubs who were budgeting for money they never had, as did leeds of course! like to throw leeds in for the sake of it, gets people's backs up :wink: football operates in a bubble, always has done...nobody can seriously think the PL is going to increase in popularity can they? except people employed either in or by the PL as it serves them to believe so...seems to me people are sick of it, sick of paying 60 quid a month or something for sky etc... as the economy gets worse it'll catch up with football, has to then we'll see what's what Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 We may well be thanking Laura Ashley in 12 to 18 months time but from what i've seen both at the club and in football in general there is much more chance of effigies being burned of the fat c*** before this year is out. The fact Scudamore has managed to negotiate a new TV deal for more money during a time of recession tells me that the arse isn't about to drop out of this sport just yet. The only clubs who are going to be in real danger are ones in the Fizzy Pop leagues, the leagues we'll be playing in over the next few years. Seems to me that Ashley wanted to sell the club on for a profit, hence the ridiculous instance on clearing up even the managable chunks of debt but the global financial clusterfuck hit hard and all of a sudden he didn't have a hope in hells chance of getting rid of us. Thusly the club is suffering now. the size of the TV deal doesn't matter if clubs see it as a green light to live TOO far beyond their capabilities. indubitably- remember the collapse of the ITV deal years back, that f***ed clubs who were budgeting for money they never had, as did leeds of course! like to throw leeds in for the sake of it, gets people's backs up :wink: football operates in a bubble, always has done...nobody can seriously think the PL is going to increase in popularity can they? except people employed either in or by the PL as it serves them to believe so...seems to me people are sick of it, sick of paying 60 quid a month or something for sky etc... as the economy gets worse it'll catch up with football, has to then we'll see what's what even if sky doesn't do an "itv" it matters little if you give the clubs 100mill a year tv money if they see it as a green light to up wages to 200mill a year. my opinion is the credit crunch has only speeded up what was happening anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 We may well be thanking Laura Ashley in 12 to 18 months time but from what i've seen both at the club and in football in general there is much more chance of effigies being burned of the fat c*** before this year is out. The fact Scudamore has managed to negotiate a new TV deal for more money during a time of recession tells me that the arse isn't about to drop out of this sport just yet. The only clubs who are going to be in real danger are ones in the Fizzy Pop leagues, the leagues we'll be playing in over the next few years. Seems to me that Ashley wanted to sell the club on for a profit, hence the ridiculous instance on clearing up even the managable chunks of debt but the global financial clusterfuck hit hard and all of a sudden he didn't have a hope in hells chance of getting rid of us. Thusly the club is suffering now. the size of the TV deal doesn't matter if clubs see it as a green light to live TOO far beyond their capabilities. indubitably- remember the collapse of the ITV deal years back, that f***ed clubs who were budgeting for money they never had, as did leeds of course! like to throw leeds in for the sake of it, gets people's backs up :wink: football operates in a bubble, always has done...nobody can seriously think the PL is going to increase in popularity can they? except people employed either in or by the PL as it serves them to believe so...seems to me people are sick of it, sick of paying 60 quid a month or something for sky etc... as the economy gets worse it'll catch up with football, has to then we'll see what's what even if sky doesn't do an "itv" it matters little if you give the clubs 100mill a year tv money if they see it as a green light to up wages to 200mill a year. my opinion is the credit crunch has only speeded up what was happening anyway. indeed, sky won't do an itv of course as murdoch would never allow it but nor would he be able to artificially keep the TV deal fee inflated if the viewing figures and interest weren't there wonder what they make from selling rights abroad, but that'll probably be down the PL rather than sky i guess...domestically is where the interest will wane anyway agree with the point last point for sure Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 In case anyone's interested, Forbes Magazine have released their list of the world's billionaires. According to Forbes, Mike Ashley is now worth $1.1 billion (works out about £800 million on today's exchange rate) down from about $2.6 billion when he first bought the club. Mike Ashley's profile on Forbes.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Ouch. So he's now got about a third of his wealth invested in NUFC? No wonder the club has turned from his weekend plaything into a ridiculously tight ship. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Pretty old news that. Had been mentioned elsewhere before January. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Ouch. So he's now got about a third of his wealth invested in NUFC? No wonder the club has turned from his weekend plaything into a ridiculously tight ship. Where have you been? What do you think people have been referring to when discussing the 'global economic climate' and NUFC finances? Whether we can still get a pick'n'mix from Woolies? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Ouch. So he's now got about a third of his wealth invested in NUFC? No wonder the club has turned from his weekend plaything into a ridiculously tight ship. Where have you been? What do you think people have been referring to when discussing the 'global economic climate' and NUFC finances? Whether we can still get a pick'n'mix from Woolies? I obviously knew he'd lost a load; I thought this was a new, pretty reliable source. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 In case anyone's interested, Forbes Magazine have released their list of the world's billionaires. According to Forbes, Mike Ashley is now worth $1.1 billion (works out about £800 million on today's exchange rate) down from about $2.6 billion when he first bought the club. Mike Ashley's profile on Forbes.com they've got his age wrong tbh, his wealth too no doubt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I might be a bit pessimistic about these things, but all in all the only way to generate income in football is by success on the field, and while I agree that the priority should be to keep down the spending and the wage bill, this is a very dangerous road we took. I hope MA will prove me wrong btw. This final paragraph kind of hints at the alternative to Ashley's strategy, which is a speculate-to-accumulate policy of forking out for established players in the hope that you can then recoup the outlay by success on the field. Aside from the fact that we have Leeds as an example of what can happen with a run of bad results, is this a strategy that can work in the present climate ? With the gap between the top four and the rest being so large, and the huge cost, in fees and wages, of attracting the best players to a non-Champions League team, you could easily end up spending £50 million and end up with a team that's in the relegation zone. Even a few years ago, it was a risky strategy, but now it seems completely unrealistic. I get bored of Leeds being trotted out as a cautionary tale to everyone in the league. One example of a club that speculated and failed....but let's not forget they are still living to tell the tale. "Doing a Leeds" isn't the end of a club. It's highly likely they'll be in the same division as us next year ffs, even with all our frugality. What we did in the 90's shows that speculation works. The same as Villa are doing now. Look at the bottom five.... Newcastle Portsmouth Blackburn Middlesbrough West Brom What have they got in common? None of them have a net spend of more than £6m over the past two years. Look at the next nine up... West Ham Man City Wigan Fulham Bolton Tottenham Sunderland Hull Stoke Only Bolton and Wigan have managed to get in this position with a net spend less than £10m in 2 years. In football, the speculators DO accumulate. Current league position is dependent on spend over the previous 2 years? Even if the league table continues to reflect those positions at the end of the season, the myriad of interconnecting factors that determine league position are far more complex than just something as simplistic as that. We should have spent more money in January, you dont need a statistical fallacy to persaude anyone of that. Yeah, I've not done a thesis on it, found the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient or owt. Interesting trend though, no? And I did 2 years, because that's how long Wor Mike has been here. In that it tells us we needed to spend more money in January? We didnt really need it to know that. bobyule did. He said we could easily do a Leeds if we spent more. I was just pointing out Leeds are the exception. Not the rule. I'm sure there's another club that spent a load of money on players, had a brief flirtation with the Champions League some time ago, and is now struggling as a result of overstretching themselves in the attempt to "speculate to accumulate". What are they called again? It's on the tip of my tongue. Begins with an "N"... Not that brief. We were in Europe 8 years out of ten before Big Mike arrived. They managed a couple of years. I spoke of the Champions League. We were in that once about eight years ago, and one other time about 12 years ago. Since the Champions League began in 1997, only 6 English clubs have qualified for it and played in it. What do you think of the fact that 85 clubs have had NO "flirtation" with the Champions League ? The Champions League began in 1992, not 1997. Seven English clubs have qualified, not six. But you're correct, surprisingly, that 85 clubs have never been involved in it -- which means that you can't subtract six from 92. And our brief flirtation is still a "brief flirtation". Seven clubs have qualified but only 6 took part. Everton finished 4th when Liverpool won the competition and replaced them as holders. I'm not surprised you don't know this, as you have pretty much most of the time shown yourself to know nothing. Are you saying the 85 clubs that haven't even had a "brief flirtation" with the champions league have been better run than us when we had a "brief flirtation" with it, or are you standing by you comment - in my sig - that "anyone with a 100m quid to spare would make a better fist of the job than the previous club". ? I don't expect a constructive sensible reply, but you might surprise us all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I might be a bit pessimistic about these things, but all in all the only way to generate income in football is by success on the field, and while I agree that the priority should be to keep down the spending and the wage bill, this is a very dangerous road we took. I hope MA will prove me wrong btw. This final paragraph kind of hints at the alternative to Ashley's strategy, which is a speculate-to-accumulate policy of forking out for established players in the hope that you can then recoup the outlay by success on the field. Aside from the fact that we have Leeds as an example of what can happen with a run of bad results, is this a strategy that can work in the present climate ? With the gap between the top four and the rest being so large, and the huge cost, in fees and wages, of attracting the best players to a non-Champions League team, you could easily end up spending £50 million and end up with a team that's in the relegation zone. Even a few years ago, it was a risky strategy, but now it seems completely unrealistic. I get bored of Leeds being trotted out as a cautionary tale to everyone in the league. One example of a club that speculated and failed....but let's not forget they are still living to tell the tale. "Doing a Leeds" isn't the end of a club. It's highly likely they'll be in the same division as us next year ffs, even with all our frugality. What we did in the 90's shows that speculation works. The same as Villa are doing now. Look at the bottom five.... Newcastle Portsmouth Blackburn Middlesbrough West Brom What have they got in common? None of them have a net spend of more than £6m over the past two years. Look at the next nine up... West Ham Man City Wigan Fulham Bolton Tottenham Sunderland Hull Stoke Only Bolton and Wigan have managed to get in this position with a net spend less than £10m in 2 years. In football, the speculators DO accumulate. Current league position is dependent on spend over the previous 2 years? Even if the league table continues to reflect those positions at the end of the season, the myriad of interconnecting factors that determine league position are far more complex than just something as simplistic as that. We should have spent more money in January, you dont need a statistical fallacy to persaude anyone of that. Yeah, I've not done a thesis on it, found the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient or owt. Interesting trend though, no? And I did 2 years, because that's how long Wor Mike has been here. In that it tells us we needed to spend more money in January? We didnt really need it to know that. bobyule did. He said we could easily do a Leeds if we spent more. I was just pointing out Leeds are the exception. Not the rule. I'm sure there's another club that spent a load of money on players, had a brief flirtation with the Champions League some time ago, and is now struggling as a result of overstretching themselves in the attempt to "speculate to accumulate". What are they called again? It's on the tip of my tongue. Begins with an "N"... Not that brief. We were in Europe 8 years out of ten before Big Mike arrived. They managed a couple of years. I spoke of the Champions League. We were in that once about eight years ago, and one other time about 12 years ago. Since the Champions League began in 1997, only 6 English clubs have qualified for it and played in it. What do you think of the fact that 85 clubs have had NO "flirtation" with the Champions League ? The Champions League began in 1992, not 1997. Seven English clubs have qualified, not six. But you're correct, surprisingly, that 85 clubs have never been involved in it -- which means that you can't subtract six from 92. And our brief flirtation is still a "brief flirtation". Seven clubs have qualified but only 6 took part. Everton finished 4th when Liverpool won the competition and replaced them as holders. I'm not surprised you don't know this, as you have pretty much most of the time shown yourself to know nothing. Are you saying the 85 clubs that haven't even had a "brief flirtation" with the champions league have been better run than us when we had a "brief flirtation" with it, or are you standing by you comment - in my sig - that "anyone with a 100m quid to spare would make a better fist of the job than the previous club". ? I don't expect a constructive sensible reply, but you might surprise us all. I wasn't counting Everton, for the very reasons you outline. You forgot Blackburn Rovers, however. That's because you are mistaken about the year in which the Champions League was launched, as I have already pointed out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I might be a bit pessimistic about these things, but all in all the only way to generate income in football is by success on the field, and while I agree that the priority should be to keep down the spending and the wage bill, this is a very dangerous road we took. I hope MA will prove me wrong btw. This final paragraph kind of hints at the alternative to Ashley's strategy, which is a speculate-to-accumulate policy of forking out for established players in the hope that you can then recoup the outlay by success on the field. Aside from the fact that we have Leeds as an example of what can happen with a run of bad results, is this a strategy that can work in the present climate ? With the gap between the top four and the rest being so large, and the huge cost, in fees and wages, of attracting the best players to a non-Champions League team, you could easily end up spending £50 million and end up with a team that's in the relegation zone. Even a few years ago, it was a risky strategy, but now it seems completely unrealistic. I get bored of Leeds being trotted out as a cautionary tale to everyone in the league. One example of a club that speculated and failed....but let's not forget they are still living to tell the tale. "Doing a Leeds" isn't the end of a club. It's highly likely they'll be in the same division as us next year ffs, even with all our frugality. What we did in the 90's shows that speculation works. The same as Villa are doing now. Look at the bottom five.... Newcastle Portsmouth Blackburn Middlesbrough West Brom What have they got in common? None of them have a net spend of more than £6m over the past two years. Look at the next nine up... West Ham Man City Wigan Fulham Bolton Tottenham Sunderland Hull Stoke Only Bolton and Wigan have managed to get in this position with a net spend less than £10m in 2 years. In football, the speculators DO accumulate. Current league position is dependent on spend over the previous 2 years? Even if the league table continues to reflect those positions at the end of the season, the myriad of interconnecting factors that determine league position are far more complex than just something as simplistic as that. We should have spent more money in January, you dont need a statistical fallacy to persaude anyone of that. Yeah, I've not done a thesis on it, found the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient or owt. Interesting trend though, no? And I did 2 years, because that's how long Wor Mike has been here. In that it tells us we needed to spend more money in January? We didnt really need it to know that. bobyule did. He said we could easily do a Leeds if we spent more. I was just pointing out Leeds are the exception. Not the rule. I'm sure there's another club that spent a load of money on players, had a brief flirtation with the Champions League some time ago, and is now struggling as a result of overstretching themselves in the attempt to "speculate to accumulate". What are they called again? It's on the tip of my tongue. Begins with an "N"... Not that brief. We were in Europe 8 years out of ten before Big Mike arrived. They managed a couple of years. I spoke of the Champions League. We were in that once about eight years ago, and one other time about 12 years ago. Since the Champions League began in 1997, only 6 English clubs have qualified for it and played in it. What do you think of the fact that 85 clubs have had NO "flirtation" with the Champions League ? The Champions League began in 1992, not 1997. Seven English clubs have qualified, not six. But you're correct, surprisingly, that 85 clubs have never been involved in it -- which means that you can't subtract six from 92. And our brief flirtation is still a "brief flirtation". Seven clubs have qualified but only 6 took part. Everton finished 4th when Liverpool won the competition and replaced them as holders. I'm not surprised you don't know this, as you have pretty much most of the time shown yourself to know nothing. Are you saying the 85 clubs that haven't even had a "brief flirtation" with the champions league have been better run than us when we had a "brief flirtation" with it, or are you standing by you comment - in my sig - that "anyone with a 100m quid to spare would make a better fist of the job than the previous club". ? I don't expect a constructive sensible reply, but you might surprise us all. I wasn't counting Everton, for the very reasons you outline. You forgot Blackburn Rovers, however. That's because you are mistaken about the year in which the Champions League was launched, as I have already pointed out. but you think a "brief flirtation" with the Champions League is dismal failure or relative success ? Please clarify ? I'm probably flogging a dead horse with this as you never clarify anything else you spout, but if you think its dismal failure can you tell us when you think someone will come along and do it again, whether its the current owner or someone else ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 We had a brief flirtation with the Champions League, which might be called success, but we were unable to sustain a challenge at that end of the table. That might be termed failure. We borrowed large amounts of money to throw it at the problem. This did not work. Now we are paying the bill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 We had a brief flirtation with the Champions League, which might be called success, but we were unable to sustain a challenge at that end of the table. That might be termed failure. We borrowed large amounts of money to throw it at the problem. This did not work. Now we are paying the bill. What? It was a success - how is it anything but a success in all honesty?! "We were unable to sustain a challenge", 4th,3rd and 5th consecutive seasons and we try to replace Sir Bobby whos time was up, but got the wrong man (for the right reasons). I can't see what your arguing, those 3 seasons are the best we are going to have for a long time and that's because everything worked Shepherd picked the right manager, backed him gave him time and we reaped the rewards. Good way to run a football club. When he didn't spend in the summer of Bowyer - (to balance the books no doubt!) - he gets slated for it! Couldn't make it up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Yeah, we were unable to sustain a challenge. One season in the Champions League. Since then it's been downhill all the way. Not as far downhill as Leeds, nor as fast a descent. But in rough outline it's a similar story. That was my point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I might be a bit pessimistic about these things, but all in all the only way to generate income in football is by success on the field, and while I agree that the priority should be to keep down the spending and the wage bill, this is a very dangerous road we took. I hope MA will prove me wrong btw. This final paragraph kind of hints at the alternative to Ashley's strategy, which is a speculate-to-accumulate policy of forking out for established players in the hope that you can then recoup the outlay by success on the field. Aside from the fact that we have Leeds as an example of what can happen with a run of bad results, is this a strategy that can work in the present climate ? With the gap between the top four and the rest being so large, and the huge cost, in fees and wages, of attracting the best players to a non-Champions League team, you could easily end up spending £50 million and end up with a team that's in the relegation zone. Even a few years ago, it was a risky strategy, but now it seems completely unrealistic. I get bored of Leeds being trotted out as a cautionary tale to everyone in the league. One example of a club that speculated and failed....but let's not forget they are still living to tell the tale. "Doing a Leeds" isn't the end of a club. It's highly likely they'll be in the same division as us next year ffs, even with all our frugality. What we did in the 90's shows that speculation works. The same as Villa are doing now. Look at the bottom five.... Newcastle Portsmouth Blackburn Middlesbrough West Brom What have they got in common? None of them have a net spend of more than £6m over the past two years. Look at the next nine up... West Ham Man City Wigan Fulham Bolton Tottenham Sunderland Hull Stoke Only Bolton and Wigan have managed to get in this position with a net spend less than £10m in 2 years. In football, the speculators DO accumulate. Current league position is dependent on spend over the previous 2 years? Even if the league table continues to reflect those positions at the end of the season, the myriad of interconnecting factors that determine league position are far more complex than just something as simplistic as that. We should have spent more money in January, you dont need a statistical fallacy to persaude anyone of that. Yeah, I've not done a thesis on it, found the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient or owt. Interesting trend though, no? And I did 2 years, because that's how long Wor Mike has been here. In that it tells us we needed to spend more money in January? We didnt really need it to know that. bobyule did. He said we could easily do a Leeds if we spent more. I was just pointing out Leeds are the exception. Not the rule. I'm sure there's another club that spent a load of money on players, had a brief flirtation with the Champions League some time ago, and is now struggling as a result of overstretching themselves in the attempt to "speculate to accumulate". What are they called again? It's on the tip of my tongue. Begins with an "N"... Not that brief. We were in Europe 8 years out of ten before Big Mike arrived. They managed a couple of years. I spoke of the Champions League. We were in that once about eight years ago, and one other time about 12 years ago. Since the Champions League began in 1997, only 6 English clubs have qualified for it and played in it. What do you think of the fact that 85 clubs have had NO "flirtation" with the Champions League ? The Champions League began in 1992, not 1997. Seven English clubs have qualified, not six. But you're correct, surprisingly, that 85 clubs have never been involved in it -- which means that you can't subtract six from 92. And our brief flirtation is still a "brief flirtation". Seven clubs have qualified but only 6 took part. Everton finished 4th when Liverpool won the competition and replaced them as holders. I'm not surprised you don't know this, as you have pretty much most of the time shown yourself to know nothing. Are you saying the 85 clubs that haven't even had a "brief flirtation" with the champions league have been better run than us when we had a "brief flirtation" with it, or are you standing by you comment - in my sig - that "anyone with a 100m quid to spare would make a better fist of the job than the previous club". ? I don't expect a constructive sensible reply, but you might surprise us all. I wasn't counting Everton, for the very reasons you outline. You forgot Blackburn Rovers, however. That's because you are mistaken about the year in which the Champions League was launched, as I have already pointed out. but you think a "brief flirtation" with the Champions League is dismal failure or relative success ? Please clarify ? I'm probably flogging a dead horse with this as you never clarify anything else you spout, but if you think its dismal failure can you tell us when you think someone will come along and do it again, whether its the current owner or someone else ? http://johnstodderinexile.files.wordpress.com/2006/02/pillow_fight_sfslim.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Yeah, we were unable to sustain a challenge. One season in the Champions League. Since then it's been downhill all the way. Not as far downhill as Leeds, nor as fast a descent. But in rough outline it's a similar story. That was my point. We was in Europe consistently and among the elite teams in England. Ok i will come at this from a different angle what could Shepherd have done more in Sir Bobby's campaign to 'sustain' a challenge? I remember one season when we was top at the start of December, sounds like a club running well to me Did he need to employ a Director of Football, spend more on youth? just what buddy, you have got me very curious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I might be a bit pessimistic about these things, but all in all the only way to generate income in football is by success on the field, and while I agree that the priority should be to keep down the spending and the wage bill, this is a very dangerous road we took. I hope MA will prove me wrong btw. This final paragraph kind of hints at the alternative to Ashley's strategy, which is a speculate-to-accumulate policy of forking out for established players in the hope that you can then recoup the outlay by success on the field. Aside from the fact that we have Leeds as an example of what can happen with a run of bad results, is this a strategy that can work in the present climate ? With the gap between the top four and the rest being so large, and the huge cost, in fees and wages, of attracting the best players to a non-Champions League team, you could easily end up spending £50 million and end up with a team that's in the relegation zone. Even a few years ago, it was a risky strategy, but now it seems completely unrealistic. I get bored of Leeds being trotted out as a cautionary tale to everyone in the league. One example of a club that speculated and failed....but let's not forget they are still living to tell the tale. "Doing a Leeds" isn't the end of a club. It's highly likely they'll be in the same division as us next year ffs, even with all our frugality. What we did in the 90's shows that speculation works. The same as Villa are doing now. Look at the bottom five.... Newcastle Portsmouth Blackburn Middlesbrough West Brom What have they got in common? None of them have a net spend of more than £6m over the past two years. Look at the next nine up... West Ham Man City Wigan Fulham Bolton Tottenham Sunderland Hull Stoke Only Bolton and Wigan have managed to get in this position with a net spend less than £10m in 2 years. In football, the speculators DO accumulate. Current league position is dependent on spend over the previous 2 years? Even if the league table continues to reflect those positions at the end of the season, the myriad of interconnecting factors that determine league position are far more complex than just something as simplistic as that. We should have spent more money in January, you dont need a statistical fallacy to persaude anyone of that. Yeah, I've not done a thesis on it, found the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient or owt. Interesting trend though, no? And I did 2 years, because that's how long Wor Mike has been here. In that it tells us we needed to spend more money in January? We didnt really need it to know that. bobyule did. He said we could easily do a Leeds if we spent more. I was just pointing out Leeds are the exception. Not the rule. I'm sure there's another club that spent a load of money on players, had a brief flirtation with the Champions League some time ago, and is now struggling as a result of overstretching themselves in the attempt to "speculate to accumulate". What are they called again? It's on the tip of my tongue. Begins with an "N"... Not that brief. We were in Europe 8 years out of ten before Big Mike arrived. They managed a couple of years. I spoke of the Champions League. We were in that once about eight years ago, and one other time about 12 years ago. Since the Champions League began in 1997, only 6 English clubs have qualified for it and played in it. What do you think of the fact that 85 clubs have had NO "flirtation" with the Champions League ? The Champions League began in 1992, not 1997. Seven English clubs have qualified, not six. But you're correct, surprisingly, that 85 clubs have never been involved in it -- which means that you can't subtract six from 92. And our brief flirtation is still a "brief flirtation". Seven clubs have qualified but only 6 took part. Everton finished 4th when Liverpool won the competition and replaced them as holders. I'm not surprised you don't know this, as you have pretty much most of the time shown yourself to know nothing. Everton didn't get replaced, both clubs were in the qualifying stage. Everton failed to progress (against Villareal iirc) and were 'relegated' to the UEFA Cup (much like when we lost on pens to Partizan Belgrade). They were susbquently knocked out of the UEFA sharpish iirc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Yeah, we were unable to sustain a challenge. One season in the Champions League. Since then it's been downhill all the way. Not as far downhill as Leeds, nor as fast a descent. But in rough outline it's a similar story. That was my point. We was in Europe consistently and among the elite teams in England. Ok i will come at this from a different angle what could Shepherd have done more in Sir Bobby's campaign to 'sustain' a challenge? I remember one season when we was top at the start of December, sounds like a club running well to me Did he need to employ a Director of Football, spend more on youth? just what buddy, you have got me very curious. Strengthened a team that had lost a lot of its swagger after the Man U 2-6 ahead of the Partizan game? Handled the end of Robson's reign more intelligently? Not appointed Souness? Not thrown so much money at Souness? Not borrowed more money to deal with the effect of earlier borrowings? Not appointed Roeder? Generally, also, yes, throughout the old board's reign we should have paid a lot more attention to developing players, and had some kind of better scouting set-up that might have seen us not spend quite so much money on dross (you're always going to have signings that don't work out, but we really did waste a lot of money on players such as Marcelino, Luque, Viana, Boumsong...). We were also always crap at handling succession, with wild swings of approach and style from one manager to another. Whatever, the fact is that the old board failed to build a sustainable set-up. Alas, Ashley is currently making precisely the opposite mistake -- looking for long-term sustainability while neglecting the short-term. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Yeah, we were unable to sustain a challenge. One season in the Champions League. Since then it's been downhill all the way. Not as far downhill as Leeds, nor as fast a descent. But in rough outline it's a similar story. That was my point. We was in Europe consistently and among the elite teams in England. Ok i will come at this from a different angle what could Shepherd have done more in Sir Bobby's campaign to 'sustain' a challenge? I remember one season when we was top at the start of December, sounds like a club running well to me Did he need to employ a Director of Football, spend more on youth? just what buddy, you have got me very curious. Strengthened a team that had lost a lot of its swagger after the Man U 2-6 ahead of the Partizan game? Handled the end of Robson's reign more intelligently? Not appointed Souness? Not thrown so much money at Souness? Not borrowed more money to deal with the effect of earlier borrowings? Not appointed Roeder? Generally, also, yes, throughout the old board's reign we should have paid a lot more attention to developing players, and had some kind of better scouting set-up that might have seen us not spend quite so much money on dross (you're always going to have signings that don't work out, but we really did waste a lot of money on players such as Marcelino, Luque, Viana, Boumsong...). We were also always crap at handling succession, with wild swings of approach and style from one manager to another. Whatever, the fact is that the old board failed to build a sustainable set-up. Alas, Ashley is currently making precisely the opposite mistake -- looking for long-term sustainability while neglecting the short-term. In a nutshell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now